If BC-STV fails to pass today, I, personally, shall very likely go into a funk for the forseeable future.
After all, if proportional representation can’t pass in a province where it’s demonstrably sorely needed election after election after election, then what hope is there for the rest of the country?
So, anyone living in B.C—ask yourself: Do you want to put someone you, in all likelihood, haven’t met or don’t see very often, into a funk? I didn’t think so.
Update: Devestating news! What the hell happened? Fewer people than last time? What is wrong with people?
Disappointing. The results align nicely with my theory about human devolution and how we’re all getting stupider. Isn’t one of the big arguments against BC-STV that it’s ‘too hard’ for voters to understand? :-S
Ugh, this whole referendum was so poorly played. When BC last voted on the STV issue, both sides made reasonable arguments to explain their positions, and the vote was tight. This time, instead of compelling arguments, all we saw was fearmongering. Editorials generally boiled down to “it’s good” or “it’s bad” without any explanation, and there was very little relevant campaigning. I’m sure a lot of people in the voting booths yesterday just didn’t understand what the hell STV meant and therefore stuck with the status quo. If I hadn’t done my research back in 2005, I might not have known any better either. Incidentally, the wording changed on the ballot this time in a way that seems subtle but probably impacted the skew toward the status quo (uh yeah, I’m in market research so I’m obligated to be a dork about these things). In 2005: “Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform?” with yes or no responses. This time: “Which electoral system should BC use to elect members of the Provincial Legislative Assembly” with options “The existing electoral system” or “The single transferable vote electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly.”
In short, Mark, on behalf of all British Columbians: I’m sorry for your funk. We’ll try to do better the next time you need us.
These results can only come out of an absence of reason, so I’m not surprised to hear there was a lot of fearmongering, Kim.
I wrote the whole “funk” thing kind of jokingly, but on Wednesday morning, when I read the results for the first time, I was actually in a bad mood all day! (Self-fulfilling prophecy!)
I was so seriously disheartened, though, that I made a decision:
I’m not voting anymore.
Unless, that is, electoral reform is an official party issue for one of the ballot candidates in my riding. If that’s the case, they’ll get my vote so long as it doesn’t conflict with my equally strong principles (equal rights, for example).
Say what you will otherwise, but I see no reason why I should participate in a system where my voice has not once ever been counted in all federal and provincial elections that have ever happened since I turned 18.
I have never missed a vote, and my vote has never counted, except in situations where I used a stupid strategy to vote against someone.
(And, well, one other time. The very first time I voted—at the age of 18—it counted. But I was led by the media rather than investigating based on my own principles and voted for a party that I would never have supported had I done the smallest bit of personal investigation. I’m, err, far too ashamed to even mention which party it was.
)
I’m an idealist. If we’re going to fix it, let’s fix it right.
STV is hard for me to understand, and its complexity allows people to say stupid things like “over 80% of voters will have an MLA they voted for”, even if the “vote” consisted of a rank of ’7′. I don’t think that that’s an improvement over the current system: people (such as Mark) are unhappy when their *first* choice doesn’t produce a candidate.
I think that some sort of mixed-member proportional system would be best, retaining local representation (whose value, I admit, is most often theoretical) while introducing a proportional component. People simply vote for who they’d like to win.
Putting the actual things that you’re voting for by the checkboxes is certainly an improvement over yes/no, but then there’s the “proposed” vs. “recommended”. Two forward, one back, I suppose.
Hmm… I think that’s an over-simplification. The reason I vote strategically is linked to a mutual bit of “game theory” that all voters participate in. As a voter in a “safe” riding, I know that my first choice (or any choice other than the “safe” candidate) would end up in the trash, so I have to make a guess of what the most popular candidate that shares at least some of my principles would be—under the assumption that other people are playing the same “game.” It has nothing to do with my contentment of whether my first or second “choice” produces a real candidate. (I should be so lucky, since my vote has never actually produced a candidate.)
MMP is actually one of my least favourite voting systems, although I would no longer refuse to support for it if it ever came down to it. (Clearly, any improvement is almost too much to ask for.) While MMP results are often satisfyingly proportional, the “party list” is a very unfortunate trade off, and one that I have a lot of trouble endorsing. Accountability is too important to give up not only regional representation, but all means of having voters express contentment/discontentment with a particular MP. This is why STV was so appealing. With multiple MPs per riding, there is still regional representation. The “ranking” system, far from being complex, comes in precisely because there is no party list.
Really, the only complaint about STV that I could agree with in principle was the larger riding complaint. But “it’s too complicated! Who knows where my vote even went!?” was all fearmongering, plain and simple. The voting process is easy (it puts to paper how most people think of voting in the first place, without the need to guess how others are voting), and the tallying is something that anyone could derive for themselves. The “80%” statistic you referred to is for voter’s first or second choice, certainly not the seventh. (Although statistics are a poor way of endorsing any system, frankly.)
The “fraction of a vote” aspect that a lot of people seemed to dislike was introduced by BC’s citizen’s assembly (thus the “BC” in BC-STV). In the traditional STV system, if your vote was one that would otherwise be thrown away (by utter coincidence—depending on the order the ballots were counted, etc) then your second choice would be transfered at its full value. But why *your* vote instead of your neighbours’? That’s why all the secondary choices were counted and transferred with a scalar value.
It makes perfect sense, really.
The only alternative to weighting (or unfair selection of who gets transfered) is to not do any transfership of votes—the godawful “Instant run-off” scheme (IRV). If a candidate doesn’t get 50%, then the last place candidate is eliminated and all of his/her voter’s second choices are counted instead. (And so on until one candidate gets 50%). Notably, this does not result in PR, but still removes the “game theory” ridiculousness, so it’s still better than FPTP (but not by much). (And, incidentally, this is where a statistic like “100% of people’s ranked candidates get elected!” could be trotted out, which would be meaningless in reality.)
Anyway, PR has been my number one issue (other than equal rights) for several years now. I’m now officially making it affect my voting behaviour. Voter turnout has gone down and down, culminating in a new record low in 2008. (I’m talking federally, but the trend is universal in Canada). When will they listen to the alternatives? When it’s 50%? When it’s 40%? I’m betting on one of those numbers. Frankly, it’s the only way to make my voice heard.
Don’t bet on 50%, Mark. BC’s voter turnout in this one was something like 52% of registered voters, and 48% of eligible voters. We’re there already. Yeesh. Seriously, though, you make the most impassioned and most rational push for STV that I’ve ever heard – I just wish more voters in BC had heard your voice instead of the mob voices before the referendum.
I hear you on the frustration of not having your vote ever count (aside from that shameful vote which shall not be spoken of). One of the nicest surprises of voting in the lower mainland was that my vote, based on my own liberal (definitely small L) priorities, aligned a lot better with the popular vote than it ever would have in Alberta. Every election back home, I’d head to the polls geared up to do my part, and then I’d watch the conservative (big or small C) majority overrule me. It’s not perfect here by any stretch, but at least I’ve got a hope of electing a candidate who cares about some of the same issues that I do.
Warren, I don’t believe the wording change on the ballot was an improvement by any means. It was less clear, and it exploited the instinct to stick to what you know and to fear change, just like the NO campaign had done. More neutral phrasing would have been much more appropriate. I do, however, appreciate you sharing your view on the subject – I always end up learning something from you.